[edited out]
Let me know if you would rather me stop my series... I would get it. I do not think there is a LOT left...
I doubt that you really need any of us to agree or not with your postings or their length, even though surely it could be the case that some members (regulars of this thread or not) might agree with you and some might disagree. .and even though I am inclined to think that sticking with some earlier version of core (before v 30) would be better then running knots, I understand the signaling aspect... and yeah, I find it a bit problematic for some of the Core supporting folks to be arguing not to run knots when there are not very many alternatives..
....and yeah on a personal level, I have been bothered more about the way that Core had implemented in such a seemingly rushed way and seeming to have had not really met any burden to establish why there was a rush to implement version 30, which to me, causes me to wonder if any changes can be put in Core if they are just seeming to update when there did not seem to be any meaningful legitimate reason to do so... but yeah, I am also likely a bit of a retard when it comes to following many of the technical arguments.. .. so up until now, I have not been chiming in very much on this particular update.
you to have decent fact based information from which to come to your own conclusions.
Complete bullshit. Most of your posts are misinformation and contain mostly lies. Correct information about the OP_RETURN situation can be found in
other forum boards. It is most certainly not going to be posted by a retard in a independent thinker costume called cAPSLOCK. If he continues to keep this up then we can conclude he wants to join the transactions review board so that he can spend his day looking at CSAM together with luke-jr.
Perhaps this OP_RETURN situation shall provide an opportunity to identify pedophiles who have been hiding in their caves all this time.
You are devolving even worse. Are you trying to be purposeful in your denigration in order to derail the subject matter? I am having difficulties seeing the point of being purposefully denigrating, even if you might have had identified some areas that cAPSLOCK is wrong, I doubt that they rise to the level of purposefully uninformative.. .
Even if many of us might not be in the weeds of technical experts (especially in this particular thread - even though some guys are more technical than others, for sure) or even specifically informed about some of the technicalities of the version 30 trade offs, many of us are not so dumb as to not be able to recognize differences between good and bad arguments... especially if they are getting into unsubstantiated personal attacks.
Sometimes i toke myself to calm environment to reason how some people got information that makes them to speculate of Bitcoin price wrongly, And if someone rely on some information about Bitcoin price through social media, the person might slump and die, I think most of the social media influencers is given so many wrong analysis of Bitcoin why?
I want us to take a look of this speculation I came across in X today, to check if this man is making a point or is telling fallacy. 
https://x.com/CaliCrypto/status/1981869168665530688?t=qXNZNkwoKYvxKCVz0aC0gA&s=19Bitcoin price drives IBIT price, not the other way around, lol.
$100bil
passive asset cannot drive the 2.2 tril underlying.
LOL.
EDIT: that said, who knows what random event may or may not happen in the future.
That means it's not sure of what he just said, in other way rounds that means what he just said is under probabilities. That's the meaning of may or may not.
Currently, I have a hunch that bitcoin will never go below $80k ever again, and I am willing to enter into a 50/50 bet regarding such.
Sure there are probabilities bitcoin could go lower than $80k, and there are probabilities it could even go lower than $60k, yet the lower that you are expecting it to go, the lower the probabilities that it will make such a dip journey. but yeah, it is still possible to happen.
My bet that bitcoin will never go below $80k has been outstanding for a decent amount of time, probably decently longer than a month, yet surely so far no takers.
Do you want to give it a go, Riginac111? You must be thinking greater than 50/50 odds that BTC will go below $80k if you are spouting out (and taking serious) those even lower numbers as if they had some kind of a fighting chance of happening.
Personally, I would be quite satisfied if there was a fork that was exactly the same software, but just retained a 160-bit opreturn limit, and retained the customization abilityfor the node runners.
uh that 'fork' is called Bitcoin Core! -- you can set the limit to whatever you want. You always could at every point in time.
What was changed was the default value -- to reflect the reality of what major miners *already* changed it to, in order to avoid collateral harms.
There was a proposal that didn't make it configurable since that was the simplest thing to do, but once it was clear that some people wanted to change it it, that proposal was rejected in favor of an alternative that was configurable.
Perhaps you need to sit back and reflect and ask yourself why you feel like you are entitled to make demands about what other people choose to do with their own computers and time?
If you think dictating other peoples choices is important to you then maybe Bitcoin is just not for you. It's not for everyone, apparently.
That is a little patronizing
** Greg, especially since many of us have been in bitcoin for more than a decade.. and surely we are not going to just abandon bitcoin, even if some guys might choose to take a smaller allocation in bitcoin if they are worried about various aspects of the future of bitcoin or its stability or if there might be thoughts that upgrading changes in versions) is being done in ways that might be compromising the cornz.. since many of us likely realize that if changes are merely carried out by small groups (even if they are arguably "better," then perhaps some future changes might end up putting in nefarious features without the realization that such nefarious features are there or even concerns that bad actors could be influencing upgrades... which I think are some of the concerns about the latest version (version 30) being more about the process rather than the technical aspects of what is actually in the code or if the code is worse or better, but instead how can the code just be upgraded without some meaningful justification.
**Note:I see that Hueristic already responded and used the word hypocrite, and maybe that is a bit more accurate, even if it does come off as a bit strong, even though he (Hueristic) did seem to explain what he meant by the use of such stronger language.I am not one of those kinds of guys that necessarily wants to quit bitcoin yet or who is thinking about taking any kind of meaningful amounts of bitcoin off the table due to perceptions of what bitcoin might be becoming as compared to what I might have had thought what it is (whether erroneously had those thoughts or otherwise), even though surely I have been selling bitcoin on the way up since $250. .but mostly less than 5% for every doubling of the price.. . but that's just one of my own ways of dealing with potential uncertainties that might exist in regards to bitcoin having gone through nearly 9 doublings since it was $250 in 2015.
By the way, there are quite a few guys on this forum that tend to trust your judgement on various matters, yet there could be cases where we might consider that maybe you are wrong in regards to the extent to which some change, such as version 30, might have had gotten through by influences of bad actors and/or that the changes that were made were either not justified or they were rushed and put into bitcoin when they were not needed. I am not claiming that I would know, even though surely some guys (including yours truly) become skeptical when we get senses that changes might be being made and/or rushed through.. so then some of us might get the sense that if the changes are not really urgent, then why is there an appearance that they are being rushed through. Whether historical bitcoiners are technically correct or not in regards to the changes that are being made, there still can be anxiety in regards to whether the changes were justified and if the process for their getting adopted and accepted was sufficiently open and/or justifiable as being more necessary than not.. or whatever might be the standard for making such changes, when there seems to be so much vocal opposition and concerns about the changes being made and the justifications (if suffiicient?) for making them.
